The assessee has intimated the date of\u00a0 Amalgamation and also filed the scheme of Amalgamation in the course of assessment proceedings. \u00a0However, the assessment was passed in the name of non -existing company . The order of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the CIT(A) \u00a0.On appeal, the Tribunal held that where the assessee had intimated to the Department regarding the amalgamation of the assessee company, Notice cannot be issued in the name of the non-existing entity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of\u00a0PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd( 2019) \u00a0416 ITR 613 (SC). However, the Department relied on a subsequent judgment of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of\u00a0PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd.( 2022) \u00a0443 ITR 194 (SC).\u00a0<\/strong>It was held that in the case of\u00a0Mahagun (supra),\u00a0<\/strong>the assessee had not disclosed the change in the assesee\u2019s existence and that the subsequent case does not distinguish the case of\u00a0Maruti Suzuki (Supra).\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It was further held that judgments must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court as held in the case of\u00a0CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd( 1992 ) 198 ITR 297 (SC) ( ITA 46\/Pun\/2021 dated January 02, 2023)( AY. 2014 -15 ) \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 143(2): Assessment \u2013 Notice \u2013 Amalgamation -Notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is bad in law where the assessee had intimated the Department regarding such change \u2013 Decisions are to be read in the context in which they are rendered. [ S. 143(3), 292BB ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8k3","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31995"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31996,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31995\/revisions\/31996"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}